Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The division bench and Supreme Court decisions have consistently held that the power to change or decide the route of transmission lines does not rest with the District Magistrate under Section 16, and any order attempting to do so is beyond their jurisdiction ["M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1047"], ["Eswari Vs State Of Tamil Nadu - Madras"], ["N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - Madras"], ["M.D.,M/S.RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P.LTD. vs R.CHELLAPPAN . - Supreme Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of infrastructure development, particularly electricity transmission projects, disputes often arise over the routing of high-voltage lines across private lands. Landowners frequently seek intervention from local authorities to alter these alignments, citing personal hardships. A common question emerges: 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that ...
This query stems from ongoing litigation in Indian courts, where appellants challenge higher bench decisions affirming the limited role of the District Magistrate (DM). Generally, courts have consistently ruled that the DM lacks authority to redirect transmission lines under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This blog post delves into the legal framework, judicial precedents, and practical implications, drawing from key judgments and analyses. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The cornerstone ruling is clear: The District Magistrate does not have the power under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, to change the alignment of transmission lines. Higher courts, including Division Benches and Full Benches, have upheld this, rejecting claims that DM orders fall under Section 17(3) instead. The DM's role is strictly ministerial—permitting the telegraph authority (e.g., Power Grid Corporation or state electricity boards) to exercise powers under Section 10 when faced with resistance or obstruction. Century Rayon Limited VS IVP Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1303B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
As one judgment states: In our considered opinion, the District Collector is not vested with such power either under Section 16 or 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885... the District Collector has no authority to change the alignment and to give a new route for transmission of the electricity. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
Section 16(1) activates only on resistance or obstruction to Section 10 activities. The DM may in his discretion make an order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers. This is not a forum for debating alignment merits. Century Rayon Limited VS IVP Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1303
Courts distinguish: A resistance or obstruction would mean preventing the statutory body from carrying out the public duty. Whereas an objection is merely a form of protest... the respondent No.2 has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out as to whether the alignment proposed is correct or not and there is any possibility of realignment. Shri Sathya Sai Warehousing & Logistics Park (SSS ) Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Director C. Nagalakshmi VS Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2085
Full Bench precedent reinforces: The enquiry by the District Magistrate would be in the nature of a ministerial enquiry. KUNJULAKSHMI VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 213
Multiple Division Benches affirm: Under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the respondent No.2 has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out as to whether the alignment proposed is correct or not. Shri Sathya Sai Warehousing & Logistics Park (SSS ) Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Director C. Nagalakshmi VS Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2085
Even prior court directions to approach the DM do not confer alignment powers: That discretion is in the Telegraph authority... One authority cannot transgress upon the field allotted to the other. KUNJULAKSHMI VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 213
Appellants often argue: the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section 16, but under Section 17(3). M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1047M. D. , M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1002T. Bhuvaneswari VS District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3989Gujarat State Energy Transmission Corporation Limited VS Ratilal Maganji Brahmbhatt (Barot) - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 890
However, courts dismiss this: Section 17 deals with compensation disputes referred to the District Judge, not route alterations. DM orders disposing objections do not evolve into alignment directives, especially if petitioners evade hearings. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
Section 10 empowers the authority to place lines under, over, along or across... any immovable property, subject to minimal damage and compensation. Alignments are expert-driven for efficiency: Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission... The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds, etc. Century Rayon Limited VS IVP Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1303
Public benefit trumps individual objections, as seen in cases where electrification serves broader communities. Chairman, TANTRANSCO, Chennai VS District Collector, Thiruvallur - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4693
Supporting precedents abound. In a Gujarat High Court ruling on Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO), the court held that once technical feasibility is approved under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no landowner can seek realignment of the route, emphasizing public interest in electricity supply. M.D.,M/S.RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P.LTD. vs R.CHELLAPPAN .-related analysis.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in a transmission tower dispute noted that schemes follow notified alignments post-survey, and courts won't entertain parallel remedies or interfere with execution. Constitution of India Article 227 challenges failed, upholding the telegraph authority's domain.
In another instance, even practical solutions like raising line heights were accommodations by the authority, not DM mandates. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited VS Asian School of Business Management Trust - 2013 Supreme(SC) 708 Power Grid accepted alternates voluntarily, sidestepping technical debates on DM jurisdiction.
A Tamil Nadu case under Sections 68/164 Electricity Act reinforced: DM cannot direct route shifts for private business interests like container terminals, especially post-erection. Chairman, TANTRANSCO, Chennai VS District Collector, Thiruvallur - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4693
These cases align: Once authorized (often under Electricity Act Section 164, invoking Telegraph Act powers), routes are fixed barring exceptional circumstances. Mathakiya Ibrahim Amibhai VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 496
The Indian Telegraph Act delineates clear boundaries: DMs facilitate execution, not redesign infrastructure. Public interest in reliable power supply generally overrides private alignment preferences, with compensation as the primary remedy. By understanding these limits, stakeholders can navigate disputes efficiently.
References to key documents include M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1047, M. D. , M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1002, Century Rayon Limited VS IVP Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1303, B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468, Shri Sathya Sai Warehousing & Logistics Park (SSS ) Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Director C. Nagalakshmi VS Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2085, KUNJULAKSHMI VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 213, T. Bhuvaneswari VS District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3989, Gujarat State Energy Transmission Corporation Limited VS Ratilal Maganji Brahmbhatt (Barot) - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 890, and related sources like M.D.,M/S.RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P.LTD. vs R.CHELLAPPAN ., Mathakiya Ibrahim Amibhai VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 496, Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited VS Asian School of Business Management Trust - 2013 Supreme(SC) 708, Chairman, TANTRANSCO, Chennai VS District Collector, Thiruvallur - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4693. Always verify latest judgments for evolving law.
#TelegraphAct #TransmissionLines #LegalInsights
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section .......
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section .......
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under S.16#HL....
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under S.16#HL....
that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and alignment. ... Act, the District Magistrate had #HL_ST....
On the scope and applicability of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Division Bench of this Court after taking note of the earlier decisions rendered, has held as follows:- "9. ... Considering the scope of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act vis-a-vis Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scin....
The Hon’ble Division Bench further held that once the competent authority issuing authorization under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the licensee is conferred with the power under Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 to determine the property over which the lines are to pass or poles are to be erected. ... The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode, W.P. ... of Section 164 of the Electricity #....
Act, 1885, deals with the Power to place "Telegraph Lines and Posts" and powers to do so. ... (4) of the Telegraph Act states that if there is any resistance or obstruction, the District Magistrate may in his discretion, ... Collector-cum-District Magistrate, to pass span style="font-family:Verdana,serif;font-size:10pt"
the representation for change of alignment. ... Considering the scope of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act vis-a-vis Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scindia Potteries v. ... The Division Bench decision clearly mandates that the objection of the land owner will not be of any consequence for the purpose of align....
The District Magistrate has no power to alter any route or alignment except to remove the difficulties faced by the licensee or person authorised, pursuant to the orders issued under Section 164 of the Act. ... The Hon’ble Division Bench further held that once the competent authority issuing authorization under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the licensee is conferred with the power under Indian Telegraph #HL_S....
In the above reported case, on behalf of the appellant therein, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench went wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section 16, but under Section 17(3) of the said Act.
In the above reported case, on behalf of the appellant therein, it has been submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench went wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Hon'ble Division Bench has failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section 16, but under Section 17(3) of the said Act.
The State of Tamil Nadu took a stand that the erection of towers for carrying the transmission line was for the benefit of the public at large who stood to benefit from the energising of the target area for the improvement of the lot of the people of the area. The main thrust of challenge before the Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to direct change of alignment of a transmission line under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. The respondent therein contended that the District Collector/Magistrate has no power to change the alignment. ....
Keeping aside the technical aspect of the matter as to whether the order passed by the District Collector was one under Section 16 or Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, in order to arrive at a practical solution to the problem, the Power Grid Corporation accepted the alternate suggestion made on behalf of the appellant Company and raised the height of the lowest point of sag of the transmission lines between the two towers on either side of the poultry sheds of the appellant Company from 46.5 m to 52 m, which in practical terms means a clearance of 30 ft between the lowest point of the s....
The respondent therein contended that the District Collector/Magistrate has no power to change the alignment. The main thrust of challenge before the Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to direct change of alignment of a transmission line under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. The State of Tamil Nadu took a stand that the erection of towers for carrying the transmission line was for the benefit of the public at large who stood to benefit from the energising of the target area for the improvement of the lot of the people of the area. ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
